Macro outlook for 2026/27 (In summary: Its a shitstorm)

This and next year will likely be defined by Hormuz and MidEast situation, but not just that, there is likely a number of events following across different areas of the globe that might create a pressure on global supply chains, inflation and the freedom of movement with vehicles. Lets outline some of those on the article below. On this article i will list some of my "predictions" that might come true in next 12-24 months.

Polycrisis:

The 4th turning has been underway for a few years by now, with 2020 as a starting point. If one marks exactly what kind of fields or what industries and supply chains were attacked, it becomes quickly obvious that this cycle is unfolding in multiple directions at the same time, or what some would call a "polycrisis".

Not a crisis of just supply chain disruption, but a crisis of immune system attacks. Not just a crisis of immune system dysregulation, but a crisis of energy infrastructure attacks. Not just a crisis of energy infrastructure sabotage, but a crisis of geopolitical fracturing and dis-cooperation. And so forth. Why attack from so many vectors at once? In my belief, because human beings in the 21st century live in a very robust timeline, with everything so efficient (healthcare, food availability, excess capital...) that it takes a lot to push a global engineered crisis where everyone starts to feel the consequences. It takes a lot to destroy or damage a well-interconnected system, altough on the other hand well-interconnected system has significant weaknesses as well due to its interconnectivity, which could be exploited by bad actors. This is why the multi-vector approach rather than single-fold in my view.

In reality, the 4th turnings in the past were mostly multi-vector in approach as well, but the main difference is that many of the things are very deceptive and hidden, happening to us now, whereas in the past they were more obvious and straightforward. Possibly because the population is much more informed in current times. If one looks how many secret weapon systems and rigged events are present in past few decades versus the century or two ago when things were more in the plain open, the informity of population makes sense why the macro riggers have decided to approach it this way.

I know a lot of what I write here in the article will, for some of you, seem just delusional or straight up crazy or in best case just a big speculation. I have always been obsessed with future projections and studying material that gives insights for that, which in effect makes me often isolated in projections, as many won't macro analysts dont like to stray too far out "of the whack" in how they form the views (so that they get their time on TV or media in general). A lot of analysts do not whatsoever include into their geopolitical projections the concept of "rigging" and that is in my view a critical failure to comprehend the future projections, as we do indeed live in completely orchestrated world. Everything you will read in this article is my projection and conclusion, with limited explanation, which may seem very blunt and arrogant to present in this form, but the post is meant to be a "prediction conclusion" article rather than explaining each point in depth.

I have had a bunch of conversations this and prior year with individuals in trading/markets whether studying of the "rigged material" is helpful with "the read on geopolitics" and the answer is absolutely yes. And there is tons of rigged material to study out there some of which is or isnt geopolitically related.

So lets dive into some projections for this and next year.

Disruption of key maritime Straits as a starter

In my view, the Strait of Hormuz is first piece of the puzzle and it is likely to remain closed until end of this year and then some (being mined or naval blockade), with energy exports being cut off for a prolonged period of time from the MidEast.

To give you the concept of my thinking behind Hormuz closure, I have written two articles a year+ before Hormuz became a mainstream media topic on how the Strait was likely to get disrupted:

Oil price surge and shakeup of the markets coming?

Strait of Hormuz and market implications (part 2)

As a first starting point for deepening the 4th turning cycle, I believe it's likely that the Strait of Hormuz gets mined, with the Iranian navy deploying the mines or perhaps a conflict in MidEast expands so much that no maritime company would dare to send oil tankers through the Strait. Mining of the Strait maneuver could be created so that it limits the flexibility of what the US can deploy in the region, as it severely limits the operational capacity of the naval arsenal, increases the distances for combat aircraft, and also hurts economically all countries inside the region which are aiding the US (which is the majority of them) by creating an energy blockade.

The problem with mining the waters is that once naval mines are deployed it can be long process and tricky to get them out (delaying how long Hormuz remains closed and oil not getting out). Especially if Iranian (light boats) navy was to be deployed as max distraction around mines, and the mines are mostly deployed for larger vessels with deep body, it can be difficult to de-mine the Hormuz in short period of time.

From this standpoint, such a development would be very bearish for markets and bullish for oil, in my view, and here is why: Markets have been drinking Kool-Aid in March and April because there is still some chance for a peaceful "deal" and resolution. Especially equities have been pricing in potential for that, because of how much weight the market gives to social media posts of the US president and officials vs facts on the ground.

If Hormuz were to be mined, that reality would be shattered, as a new change would mean that the Strait would be closed for sure for a prolonged period of time, regardless of whether the US and Iran are still negotiating or not. Markets would have to price in an instant supply shock for multiple months in advance as the best-case scenario, or a full year plus in the worst case.

I believe that, because of that, one needs to pay close attention to whether Hormuz gets or doesn't get mined because of how quickly its bearish effect on markets can be.

There are multiple ways this conflict could develop, multiple scenarios. Nothing is set in stone.

The mining doesn't have to happen. US might or might not deploy ground forces in Iran. US might or might not be able to stop Iran from deploying mines in the water. From my view, any other scenarios are bullish for energy to some extent as they might lead to more energy infrastructure damage in the region, but mining of Hormuz is the most bearish card to watch for, if it does happen. Since this conflict is engineered in my way, I would think that if the macro orchestrators intend to create as big a global supply shock as possible, then mining of the Hormuz is not a low-probability event, but rather quite high up there.

In addition to the mining of Hormuz, an even bigger problem would be an attack on the electrical and water infrastructure of Middle Eastern countries, initiated by the US against Iran perhaps in August or September. If the US does follow through with bombing such Iranian civilian infrastructure, it is easy to foresee that Iran would respond with the same action to nearby countries around the Persian Gulf.

So what does this mean? It means that the region becomes inhospitable for the civilian population and the workforce on oil rigs, and industry no longer exists. At which point we lose oil from the Middle East for good, for multiple years. Regardless of what's happening in the Hormuz Strait. I dont think this is low probability event. Lets ask ourselfs, did Ukraine destroy half of Russian energy infrastructure in 2026, and did Russia start bombing Ukraines electrical infrastructure? The answer to those both questions is yes. So the action in MidEast would fit into same theme.

And yes all of this "deal or no deal" drama that you read so much about in the news and social media between the US and Iran's administration is most likely fake and designed to be so, for Hormuz to remain closed, and for Iran to lose as little military arsenal as possible to still retain control over the Strait.

At some point, the markets will realize this, and that point will probably be when global oil inventories fall under operational minimums, and there is nowhere to go. It will be too late at that point to do any defensive strategic maneuvers (such as ramping up reserves, or de-escalating conflicts), but that is the ticking time clock. This deal drama, however, was orchestrated by the current US president's "control" team, which fits his personality and past business ventures, but it carries no real negotiating meaning, at least in my view. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Bab el-Mandab gets closed/disrupted after Hormuz in 2026, following by disruption of Malacca strait somewhen in 2027

First, we need to understand the agenda of the US administration and think-tanks and why it is trying to retain its global leadership position by preventing competitive economies (especially China) from outgrowing the US.

The plan is very sinister, and its "foundation" can be found in a lot of scattered material, but it is scattered across multiple think-tank institutions, books and video content for one to put all the pieces together some of which institutions include the Committee on Present Danger China (COPDC), the Council on Foreign Relations, Rand Corp, certain US generals (Spalding) and some other institutions.

China's growth has come to the point where it will, by mathematical guarantee, start to outpace the US on many fronts, including certain technology sectors, and the think-tank institutions within the US semm to have composed a strategy which would prevent that certainty from happening. Basically inverting the Thucydides Trap, which some geopolitical analysts believe is unavoidable, of course, if one reads material from the mentioned think-tanks above, they completely disagree, and so does the Pentagon.

What that plan is specifically: The blocking of key global trade arteries, which includes: Malacca, Hormuz, Bab el-Mandab and Panama.

Most of global trade and especially resources such as oil flow through those 4 choke-points. Meaning, if those were be blocked at the same time, no matter which country it is, the access to global trade and resource would shrink by a significant margin, even if the rest of the seas were left untouched and free to manouver. Basically think of it like capillaries and arteries in your body: if you keep all capilaries unblocked and free flowing with blood but one blocks 2 or 3 key arteries in such a body at same time, the whole circulatory system becomes dysfunctional and the whole body as a result, regardless if 90% of capillaries are operating non-blocked and normally.

Global maritime trade works similarly in 2026.

Chinese economy, which is very resource-demanding, has significant weakness to those 4 key maritime choke points, because oil flows and its exporting trade towards Europe would collapse if those maritime choke points became clogged (via nearby conflicts for example). In such a way, if the US were to successfully orchestrate proxy conflicts near all 4 mentioned Straits, the ticking clock would start to run on the Chinese economy.

Maybe CIA provides Houtis in Yemen with some advanced weapons that allow them to effectively block Bab el-Mandab Strait. Maybe the US administration effectively pushes Indonesian government into starting to cause troubles around Malacca Strait for China pushing economic tolls or no further free passage. Maybe the US plays pretend conflict game with Iran and keeps Hormuz closed for a year or two. I think you get my point.

Do you think its just a coincidence that since 2010 the US went onto the path of building a self-sufficient oil industry, and that in 2016 with new administration started the process of on-shoring production? Of course not, think-tanks and macro planners knew that at some point the closing of those 4 straits will come into play, and for the US to take as minimal damage as possible, it needs resources on its own homeland, not tied to global trade, especially oil. This was planned two decades in advance. Thats how macro rigs work.

On the chart below, the noticeable 2010+ ramp in self-sufficiency of US oil production.

I believe that the plan is to first close Hormuz by creating a conflict that isn't a conflict between the US and Iran. What I mean by that is creating a situation where, technically, both countries are at war, but the US is not really engaging too much with the Iranian navy or the Persian Gulf arsenal in order to give Iran a space to do its own maneuvering. I firmly believe that if the US opened fire with full cannons, so to speak, it would demolish all Iran's control capacity around the Persian Gulf, at which point the Hormuz would "naturally" reopen. And the whole strategy of keeping Hormuz closed to pressure China would fall apart. So they engineered a special conflict-but-not-a-conflict route.

Remember that all this deal drama makes no sense on first sight, and people tend to think all US politicans are just fools, but that is only on the surface. If you place this strategy into the right perspective (intentional Hormuz closure) it all starts to make a lot more sense. Delay, delay, delay - oil shortage.

On the image below is timing wise how i believe the Straits might be closed, starting with Hormuz, going to Bab el-Mandab, going to Cape of Africa (and possibly Gibraltar) and finishing with Malacca.

After that, Bab el-Mandab might be closed by Houthi forces. This cuts off Saudis oil, and it cuts Egypt off from dollar inflows, which puts inflationary pressure on both economies, a rather significant one, as the Red Sea would likely no longer be operational. If Bab gets closed, then there is no point for any ship to sail through the Suez or to be within the Red Sea, waiting for Houthi rockets to hit them. Which means Red Sea would empty out.

The issue with the closure of Bab el-Mandab is that the next logical step for maritime cargo is to go via South Africa. Which can become piracy-prone either off the south of Africa or in Somali waters, creating another disruption leg. This would push global insurance rates up and make many ships avoid that route altogether. Bullish for oil, inflationary for global economy, and bad for markets.

The problem with this US strategy is that while I believe it disproportionately targets China, it also targets everyone on the Eurasian landmass and even in the US or South America. Think like firing a bomb at the target but the colateral damage is 5 times bigger than the actual target area.

There is no such thing as choking the trade and resource flows to just China by blocking 4 key trade routes; it equally puts every other country into the same situation. The question is whether the US is trying to achieve something else as well with this plan, which isn't China-related, but more global-scale related (Agenda 2030, WEF perhaps?). I should highlight that if you read risk reports from WEF (especially 2022 and 23 editions) some of what i am outlining here has already been discussed in that documentation, where they outline a serious disruption for global economies in near future. And lets not forget, that is the group of people who in 2025 has launched series of video/conference/exercise events about how our future will be fully robotic / AI driven and that we will all be replaced sooner rather than later with such workforce. It is worrying to have that kind of conclusions from key corporative leaders aligned with US administration strategy at once, hence my hint on Agenda 2030...

It goes without saying that if those 3/4 straits get closed as per my outlook, we would see product shortages and significantly higher inflation globally, combined with lower GDPs.

Understanding the US policy towards China, in my view, is the core of understanding anything that is/will happen to us on a global level in the next 5 years or for that matter in prior 5 years. It all wraps around this, just as US-Soviets in the prior century had similar scope, but the Soviets were not as short on resources as China is, and the US knows how to apply the pressure.

Oil shortage (rationing of fuel at petrol stations) as ignition for China-Taiwan event potentially

I believe that oil shortages will be the core puzzle of this 4th turning cycle. Every other theme will be wrapped around it. The conflicts will start to expand once oil/energy shortages kick in, and then Western powers will blame all that's happening on Russian or Iranian or Chinese actions, disregarding the fact that Ukraine destroyed a lot of Russian oil infrastructure, or that the US and Israel launched attacks into Iran, causing the regional chaos and cutting the entire Middle East supply away from global markets.

Every 4th turning in past had two major powers that go cross swords, usually the challenger and the status quo leader, in the current case being the US and China. And typically it is the status quo power that draws in the challenger into a trap, not the other way around.

We can already see or find a lot of material that provides clues that indeed the US is serious about gradually dislocating capital and trade ties away from China since 2015, but I believe that the US cannot sever the ties completely without some really, really good reasons. Because, after all, how will the political administration explain to its own voters that half of Tesco or Walmart shelves are all of a sudden empty and there is ramping consumer inflation because the US administration went full cut mode. They wouldn't be able to do it, so there is a "special solution" that they might be cooking up. Which is China, just as Russia, needs to be presented as a global aggressor. US has effectively set a trap for Russia in 2014 in Ukraine (via the use of the CIA and a financed coup d eta), which allowed the US to present Russia on the global stage as an untrustworthy country that no US ally should trade with. And that's more or less what happened. That same strategy, I believe, will be applied to China as well, by creating a trap around Taiwan into which China might take a bait.

Now someone might say: "Well, that makes no sense. Why would China play such a mindless strategic game by doing exactly what the US wants it to do, and creating the circumstances that punish its economic growth severely? That makes no sense." You need to understand the strategy of the US first to see why China might be "forced" into the Taiwan card. As per the above title, the oil shortages, I believe, will be the key to the 4th turning puzzle, because if the US effectively blocks all 4 key maritime straits (Malacca and Hormuz as 2 key ones), then Asian economies would start to heavily compete for remaining crude oil on open markets (Japan and China as most obvious example).

And we can rationally assume that at some point some economies would be unable to get the fuel/oil they need for total GDP consumption, so the demand destruction policies set by governments would set in (basically governments saying who gets how much fuel).

Since China is the most energy-hungry nation in Asia, and it truly requires consistently high GDP growth, with an oil shortage, obviously, the GDP would slump, and depending on just how severe those shortages would be, we could conclude a few scenarios. If we go to the most extreme scenario, where for a year plus the key 4 maritime choke points are closed, there is no oil coming from the Middle East or Russia, then the world's economy would hit operational minimums on oil inventories within August this year and then gradually, month by month, hit deeper and deeper restrictions on consumption. So let's assume that Chinese manufacturing activity, supply chains, and food transportation all start to gradually halt (to let's say 50% of its capacity); that would become very economically destructive and inflationary at the same time.

If such conditions remain present for a long time without an end in sight (and the US keeps all 4 key maritime choke points closed by use of proxy forces that steer conflicts near them- Houthi-Bab el Mandab, Iran-Hormuz, Indonesia-Malacca) then China could face the decision to invert this by taking control over TSMC in Taiwan and trying to force the US to dismantle the conflicts around the key 4 choke points.

As i have written in already prior article, in my view TSMC will likely be the card that China uses within the cold war between the US and China, especially if oil shortages is the card that the US deploys, and the reason is simple: This is the cheapest way for China to cause maximum damage to the US economy. There is no other military or economic manouver that from at least my understanding, China can deploy that has as much bang-for-buck effect as taking over the TSMC in Taiwan and restricting the exports of semiconductors to the US mainland.

We are currently still within major semiconductor bubble, with many of those companies becoming the biggest global companies and big chunk of them rely on TSMC as a base producer of chips. So if TSMC is cut from global exports, the damage to the US economy and technological advances is heavy. Under some estimates the toll could be aproximately 2.5 trillion USD hit to the GDP.

So US takes oil, and China takes semis. Who blinks first?

Operational minimums on global oil inventories

As of writing this article, the US strategic reserve is sitting on 311 million barrels. The operational minimum is approximately 300 mil (some numbers go between 280 and 300).

Of course, other countries have different levels of reserves, such as Japan or China, but they don't really matter in my view, because they are huge net importers. So the US numbers are globally the most important, as the US has been effectively filling the gap of the missing Hormuz supply since February 2026 especially for European markets.

Inventory minimums are the centerpiece of the entire puzzle. Here is why. Think of global oil industry and trade like blood in your body. You have about 5 liters of blood, but you can only lose 20% before the circulatory system starts to gradually fall apart due to pressure loss and other things if that 20% is not replenished. A 40% loss is fatal fast, but a 20% loss if not restored can be equally problematic in many cases. Oil industry works similar, where there might be 300 million barrels of oil sitting in reserves which sounds like a large number. But it isnt until you realize where that operational minimum under which the reserves must not fall is. Its not far from where we are sitting currently. And if Hormuz does not reopen, those reserves cannot get replenished.

Going towards oil shortages, and the reason why, in my view, the US administration has been playing this fake conflict/talks game with Iran for so long, is to keep the inventories at the drain to eventually hit operational minimums. Because once that number is hit (which should be by the end of August), then the US administration can start playing the "oh we didn't know" pretend game, where they stop the oil exports into the EU and Asia altogether with a pretty good excuse that all the supply has to remain on the shore of the US as a priority, to keep the oil industry functional. Because if oil reserves drop under the operational minimum, you start to get all sorts of unwanted troubles. The pressure in oil pipelines and refineries starts to drop, the flow of refined products such as diesel and gasoline starts to get disrupted; basically, the production of petrol-station products starts to fall apart.

The chart that should keep you up awake at night:

Keep in mind that what I have written above is not speculative. We will hit operational minimums as a mathematical guarantee by the end of August (and perhaps a bit later in some countries) if Hormuz does not reopen, let alone if Bab el-Mandab gets closed as well.

This is the ignition event that then gradually starts to create an oil shortage globally. That probably would not happen fast; it would take some time to work through the remaining inventories. It would start gradually, and then possibly every next month the restrictions at petrol stations would become more and more strict. "Today you can fill up this much diesel." Two months later: "Today you are allowed to fill only half of what you were allowed to fill two months ago."

I firmly believe this is part of the plan and that we will hit operational minimums. And once we do, it will become the leading story in the news. What happens after is a bunch of demand-destruction policies and "belt tightening" from governments in Europe and Asia, and we know how EU bureaucrats love belt tightening; they practiced for years on Greece their fetish strategies.

So in general, oil shortages could/will lead to mobility decrease for consumers and industry in many countries, lesser GDP growth, an unusual "lockdown" alike situation that would probably have some similarities with 2020. Again, why create oil shortages? Because it provokes China into a trap. That is one reason, i have additional one even bigger reason which I won't go into, because its a bit too nihilistic but some of which i have hinted with "Agenda 2030".

MidEast region gets completely ingulfed into a conflict

The Middle East has been constantly on the verge of conflict or within one for the past 100 years, as the global economy transitioned to oil (surely just a coincidence).

If you draw strategic points around the Middle East and if we go by oil shortage creation as an actual strategy, one can notice that there would likely be many hot spots within the ME region if that truly was indeed part of the plan.

Some of the key areas to mark:

-Hormuz. Closing of Hormuz disrupts exports of UAE, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait.

-Bab el-Mandab on the south of the Red Sea. Closing this strait closes down Suez as well, effectively forcing all cargo and tankers to go around Africa. But if you do go around Africa, you have to pass Somali pirates, potentially South African pirates and more.

-Egypt has very fragile exposure if Suez were to close. It could push Egypt to join the MidEast conflict, trying to resolve it, perhaps by attacking Houthis, expanding Red Sea conflict.

-Saudi Arabia could easily become annoyed and pushed into military escalation of Red Sea was to close, because their revenues and GDP would plunge. Whether they would go against Iran or Israel i am uncertain, either way its escalatory.

-...

If conflict was to engulf a large portion of the region, it could lead to:

-Mass relocation/migration of MidEast population into EU or Asia and pressures on the borders due to attacks on civilian infrastructure (electricity, water, energy) in region

-Permanent dislocation of MidEast oil supply for Asian economies which is at the current time of mid 2026 not at all priced into the markets, perhaps at the scale of 20 mil barrels daily plus

-Attacks on civilian population in European or US cities as part of revenge, especially if US decides to destroy Iran's civilian (electricity and water) infrastructure

-And most importantly, a year+long dislocation of Middle East energy supplies for global markets. None of which is priced into, none of which any country has any practical solution for what to do about it in such a situation. The world is not ready.

Arrrr, its dem pirates again

Now one might be asking why on earth you would be predicting a rise in piracy, not the internet kind, but a physical one where the proxy forces/gangs launch attacks on shipping lines and cause further disruption to shipping. Those gangs could easily be financed by the same macro riggers who are orchestrating the entire Middle East conflict in the first place via shadow money.

To outline why the piracy might rise, we need to first return to my prior point that this entire oil dislocation situation is cooked up, with strategic intent. Which is to delay the oil and cause the shortage of product, and if we strap into this context that "someone" has agenda to dislocate portion of global oil supply, then it could as well make sense that those some financeers might seek for proxy forces inside few African countries, deliver them boats, guns and money, just enough to start raiding the shipping lines, and further prevent that African route (after Red Sea falls out) becomes a savior for European energy. And due to sheer size of Africa it could be very tricky for western navies trying to protect entire shipping route.

As result of this i believe that we will see shipping index (IX2260) go to 6000 this year. Shipping rates and insurances likely to go significantly higher. Shipping companies, tanker companies likely to all benefit (FRO, ZIM etc).

Soon, the scenario depicted in the movie Captain Phillips is about to become commonplace, not a rarity. In fact, we may see cargo attacks with rampant piracy daily around the African shores, as all the cargo has to reroute from the Red Sea, going around Africa instead.

4th turning rapidly increases in geopolitical friction between 2026-2028 (bigger than any year in past 50 years):

The reason why I believe what is happening in the past few years is a "new cycle" and not just part of the prior norm is due to the significance of escalatory upticks. While yes, proxy conflicts and US endless wars were common before, and certain rigged events have happened before, most of those were smaller on the scale than what we have currently. As comparison:

-Iraq 2003 conflict vs Ukraine/Russia 2022 (later one is much bigger)

-9/11/2001 vs 2020 (the latter one was much bigger)

-supply chain accidents or attacks between 1980-2026 the numbers in past 4 years massively overshadow any decades from the past

-Ukraine conflict economic disruption vs Iran conflict disruption (the latter one has much bigger potential due to bigger total net oil barrels lost)

....

We could make long list but just to quickly prove the point. The conflicts or rigged events are getting bigger. The supply dislocations bigger. The number of "accidents" is growing exponentially. This is cyclical change. On the positive note...every cycle has its ending. Every 4th turning has its end, which then leads to few decades of relative peace and growth, but keep in mind that we are still walking into expansion of cycle (as per data and historical pattern) and there is no de-escalatory year that has been clearly visible yet. More disruptive events are still potentially stacked to happen, more about that on article below.

I should highlight one thing, however, where I strongly disagree with most geopolitical or macro content creators. I do not fear nuclear war or worry about direct US-China military conflict or things of such. I believe that this 4th turning is likely to be and remain much more asymmetric (as we can see already). This means proxy conflicts between large powers and smaller countries (Russia-Ukraine, China-Taiwan, US-Iran), but the big countries do not engage directly with each other; instead, we see asymmetric attacks launched between them in cyberspace (attacks on electrical and water infrastructure), capital wars (sanctions and tariffs), and coordinated proxy conflicts where each country tries to sink the other into conflict with neighbouring countries.

I think that most analysts or content creators worry about completely the wrong things. It's not to fear if nuclear weapons could start flying under this 4th turning cycle; it's to fear that with cyber attacks, the telecommunications and electric grid can be disrupted for weeks, which in itself is just as if not more apocalyptic as nuclear weapons, but in a controlled fashion. I believe that the macro riggers behind all this have a "controlled demolition" in plan, not a hands-off random nuclear skirmish where the pathway cannot be predicted with planed outcome.

NATO and US (orchestrated) breakup:

It might seem like a silly idea, but i believe if there was to be a plan for trying to invite Russia deeper into NATO teritorry then US might have a secretly forget plan of how to exit the NATO before that happens. Obviously using a crafted deceptful words thrown out by current US president ("we are pulling out because NATO countries are so cheap they dont even pay for their own defense"), which then gives Russia a reason to expand conflict into Baltic states, if they know US wont aid them. I believe (and if you read think tank institutional reports so do they) that US cannot stretch itself at same time in both East EU (with Russia) and in South China sea (with China), the military capacity and especially the budget capacity is just not strong enough. So it makes sense that perhaps there is "strategic manouver" with pull out of NATO implemented. This shifts the power drain onto Europe instead of US, and it exhausts Russia both economically and militarily as NATO is much bigger cookie to chew through than Ukraine.

Under this potential NATO breakup, Russia might expand west front past Ukraine into NATO countries, with potentially Belarus joining its side. Belarus has been quietly sitting on the side since 2014 and, in my view, could be used at some point if NATO countries become more active. East front 2.0 develops therefore.

If the NATO alliance between the US and the EU breaks up, this scenario could unfold. I do not believe that it could happen without this precondition, however. If the US Army is forced to aid NATO on a large scale, it could be too difficult and dangerous for Russia to make any advance on the field. But with the US out of the picture...that changes things.

Much documentation in military publications of NATO institutions from last 2 years already suggests as "near certainty" that a Russia-NATO conflict is due to happen rather shortly. All of my projections are always based on material that I research, and i try to implement into projections a lot of think-tank or political views from those that are in my view deep into trenches of global macro rig party (or at least financed or working for them).

I had some conversations where some have pushed back with a counterargument that there is no way Russia would invade deeper into NATO, because it was barely able to take over half of Ukraine. So it cannot happen. Let me give you a few reasons why this is flawed thinking:

Our task is not to project outcomes of conflicts, who wins, who loses before it happens. If you are a civilian, that is the least important thing. If conflict has a chance to happen, that is most important part. Because before any major power (such as Russia) extends too much and drains out its human and weaponry arsenal, it can do significant damage to the countries it tries to take on, even if it loses in the end. That is why, throughout history, you have seen countless examples of weaker powers doing just that, failing in the end (Germany WW2), and yet...the destruction they caused was immense. That is precisely why I believe this argument needs to be reconsidered. Russia has enough military (drones) and cyber arsenal to inflict a multi year lasting conflict with at least several NATO states if it decided to go that path, or if NATO did something to lure Russia in intentionally via false flag events.

Additionally Belorussian forces could join Russia, expanding its personnel capacity, and that as well helps to tip the chances in that direction. Not to mention that the countries that border Russia are (one of) the weakest NATO countries in terms of military strength, and the strongest ones (Germany, France) are much further away from Russian borders. Allowing Russia to do proxy engagements into near NATO territory for at least a year before everyone else regroups in NATO and before Poland is drawn in.

So why could/would US-NATO alliance break up? I believe if we follow the chronological projection of 4th turning, the US-China (Taiwan) and US-Iran are such large-scale conflicts that the US just does not have the capacity to fight another dimension of conflict on the European grounds. It gets too stretched out. Is the Pentagon projecting conflict with China? Yes, there is much documentation written for that if one looks around. Is Iran a go? Unfolding as of the writing of this article. So then it makes sense that the US pulling out of Europe aligns with that. This is why you suddenly see the US president calling NATO allies "useless," and this social media posturing might just be preconditioning the global population to accept the breakup as a "was bound to happen" once it does.

An additional scenario is that some NATO countries are potentially removed from NATO to fracture military strength, so not just that the US could pull out, but some countries could leave and make the alliance much less reliable.

The reason for stating this is because we have significant political shifts in multiple European countries in the past year, which are either pro-Gaza (Spain), pro-Russian (Italy), or, in general, anti-Israel in stance from their prime ministers. While I believe that many of those are just installed puppets specifically planted to sow division in European unity, it doesn't really matter, because all that matters are the outcomes, since the majority of voters can't tell the difference between an honest and (behind the back) paid and installed candidate. So watch for either 1. multiple countries breaking away from NATO or 2. the US pulling out as two possible scenarios.

To realign the view on why I think the US is creating two soft/fake conflicts, both in the Middle East and in East EU, via non-commitment (and letting proxy countries do the fighting instead):

-If the US were to remain in NATO and fully commit to stop the Russian drones and aircraft, the conflict could be quickly over. It would not have the capacity to travel far into NATO countries as all attacks would be intercepted, or many of them, and Russia would perhaps not even dare poking into NATO with US backing.

-If the US was to commit with heavy invasion destroying Iran's navy and air force, the same would be true. Iran would be incapable of holding Hormuz hostage going further.

My read on the agenda comes from a sinister perspective that the US military is intentionally creating a soft stance both in Eastern Europe (via NATO pullout potentially) and only giving Iran soft punches (at least in first 6 months of conflcit which matters the most from oil inventory perspective) so that both Iran and Russia have the capacity to disrupt the attacking countries, deepening the 4th turning and most importantly contribute to creation of oil shortage.

Some of you reading this won't believe it, but let's unwind a bit back to the start of this year, where my social media posts have been consistently suggesting that all Iran-US negotiations are completely fake, and no deal will be made, and that it's all just to delay keeping Hormuz closed for as long as possible. That has already been proven correct. So just give it several more months and see both of those points turn true.

Russia-NATO conflict begins to expand past the borders of Ukraine and its implications via cyber attacks

The main attacks that impact the lives of EU citizens are not from Russian drones or aircraft or ground forces but rather it is coordinated cyber attacks, launched by Global Rig Party Inc, (for which the Russians would be primarily blamed).

Cyber attacks on energy, telecommunication, and water infrastructure leading to significant disruption in day-to-day lifestyle. Those could happen trully globally across multiple continents at later stage of 4th turning, and perhaps starting around European region, with Russian conflict being the distraction-blame as a reason.

War-time economy plan projections in major EU/NATO publications align with this, which is key, in France, Germany and UK multiple political tied and military tied sources have outlined how 2027 is likely to be when our current economic system transitions into "war-time economy". Now just stop for a second and ask yourself, how can they know this in advance with such a certainty?

Keep in mind, I do plenty of research on key think-tank institutions in the West trying to figure out what the global rig party is planning. I believe that as macro analysts you simply cannot just form your own views just based on reading third-party objective content. You absolutely have to read material from "insiders and control shapers" because insiders do signal to each other or political structures of countries what's coming next, so that everyone follows the plan, because especially large scale global rigged events have to be completely coordianted politicaly (cough cough 2020). And that material has to be incorporated into the view of any macro analyst to be on the right side of future projections.

There have been plenty of articles, documentation, and stress tests launched in the past 2 years specifically on the theme of major electricity blackouts, lack of resources, trade disruption, and wartime conditions, some of which done by WEF, some by militaries of EU, some by think-tanks. Those kinds of publications pushed towards governments of the EU are by no means random or something to be dismissed. We haven't had this happen in most of our lifetimes.

At some point next year i will be updating larger article on cyber attacks, and why this is the biggest fear of 4th turning, not the nuclear weapons.

White Paper – Germany: Moving Toward a Wartime Economy?

UK must 'actively prepare' for war scenario, government warns

Why is this especially important for us global citizens even if we don't get drafted to fight? In wartime, censorship always arises. Freedom of speech declines; you no longer get the same quality of objective information as you do in normal times. Whatever the information quality we have now, it could degrade significantly in 2027 via blocked websites or heavily curated social media discussions or even disruption of internet connections via cyber attacks, creating a "shortage on info".

It is certainly interesting how Germany, the UK, and France are so convinced that Russia will expand operations and that there will be a need for wartime economy in many countries before there is even any clue of Russian forces have plans in Eastern Europe and with Russia mostly focused on just Ukraine as of early 2026.

Everything is globally coordinated. Yes for most people that is completely unacceptable to accept as it shatters their stability of belief and national pride, and yet its true. If i am just a farmer on chessboard that elite planners are tossing into the fray regardless if i am black or white color, then for many that perception shatters ilussion of national pride.

I believe that sometime by the end of 2027, perhaps, a Russia-NATO engagement could become a thing. Part of this timing is based on just how much energy infrastructure Ukraine has destroyed just in 2026 (50%) and how many more months Russian forces have before they get their supply chains completely decimated (without launching mass counter-assault).

Taiwan operation from China becomes a go (2027-28?)

As per the above article, the oil shortages could be the igniting factor for a "military operation" to come about.

It is difficult to set the timeline on something like that, but based on the maneuvers in Hormuz and oil disruption for China, I think that this is one of the major pre-defining moments for why China might start to look at "Taiwan reunification" (whatever that means).

I have written about that already plenty in my older article if you want to get aligned, why it strategically makes sense for this to happen, and why China would do that only (in my view) after certain other pre-conditions are triggered by the US itself first.

So before the Taiwan operation becomes a go, I believe a pre-card that will open this to happen could be the US imposing huge tariffs on China due to Iran aid.

All geopolitical actions have their pre-drawn red lines that happen, which trigger the actions following (strange coincidence?). For example US specificly stating that it cannot let Iraq have WMDs in 2002 as red line, and then magically in 2003 they indeed confirm that Iraq now has possesion of WMDs. Japan stating in 1940s that its red line is US imposing oil embargo, and then magically that is preciselly what US does, and Japan attacks. Or Russia stating that it cannot let Ukraine negotiate for NATO entry as red line, and then precisely few months after NATOs chief secretary starts to negotiate with Ukraine about NATO entry, and Russia expands military operations as result. Strange how this works eh?

China needs a certain invitation before it would potentially launch a Taiwan operation most likely. Iran oil blockade could be potentially one of those cards. Sanctions on China via tariffs could be another one to cement the deal if they would be severe enough, but that is not likely without oil shortage.

The risk of such conflict (China-Taiwan) is significant for markets and cannot be understated. Any such maneuvers would instantly push the entire Asian region into a state of conflict even if countries dont actually engage between each other, because so many Asian countries are under the US military alliance (Quad) and would be forced into actions to disrupt China economically (naval blockades) or militarily (aiding Taiwan). The trade between China and the West could also fall apart (just as it did between Russia and EU to some extent). Again, it is not to understate how big an impact this would have on markets.

Let's not forget the infamous Pentagon documents and words from the Chief of Staff, outlining that "the US needs to be ready for conflict with China by 2027". I am adding that into the calibration or guestimate of timing as suggested in the title.

US imposes energy export ban in late 2026

Some market commentators believe that the US will benefit significantly from the upcoming global oil supply disruption, as it will be able to export all this expensive energy abroad. Let me present you with a different view, at least why I believe the opposite might happen:

If energy prices start to rally higher due to a Hormuz shock (likely), at some point the pressure on gas pumps and farmers or supply chains in the US will start to ramp up as well, creating negative economic pressure. It could very much happen that the US political sphere decides to just ban oil exports, so that more supply stays at home and helps to create more "localized" pricing for US consumers with a better price as a result.

Additionally even more important, US strategic reserves might fall under operational minimums if US keeps exporting a lot of crude at the pace it is in Max 2026, which could easily force political administration to start thinking about banning exports to prevent pressure loss in refiners and oil pipelines.

All of this posturing that the US is currently doing by sending a lot of tankers abroad to fill the Hormuz shortfall, in my view, is just a temporary show of face. Which might be inverted via an export ban soon after. As well... is the US a net exporter or importer? Its exporter...but is that export surplus huge, or just slightly above break-even? Because if surplus was huge, then fine, one could make a point that it's not very likely to impose an export ban (Saudi Arabia as an example). If, however, on the other hand, the surplus is small, then the ban becomes probable.

Let's also consider some historical context for why export bans have happened in other countries under the 2022 Ukraine supply shock, and why recent Kazakhstan and Russian oil export bans (Russia banned diesel exports recently) are already suggesting that this will likely become a theme globally. In fact, I believe that many more countries will impose bans, not just the US, in the upcoming two years. Got oil under your feet? Keep it at home. Because there aint anyone landing in your docks with excess supply.

What will be the most obvious net result of all this? Localized oil pricing. No longer a global oil benchmark price. Every country with a different oil price. In fact...we can already see the signs of that if we compare the crude oil prices in a few different countries:

This is snapshot of todays oil price change, notice how each benchmark has significantly different pricing. That was not common before 2026. I believe it will become very common / default by end of 2027. One country might have twice as expensive oil than another.

Attacks on energy infrastructure globally expand

First, we need to change our perspective that the current energy crisis has Iran in focus. And that somehow Iran is responsible for everything, and all that is happening badly to the supply of energy is due to this country and its actions.

If one looks more broadly, it should be noticeable that energy and industrial infrastructure is being attacked globally (far away from Persian Gulf as well).

95+% of attacks are not investigated, which is massive insight. Ask yourself, why? Why hidding that...unless if you follow my explanation above: Its globally orchestrated operation.

In 2026, there have been many explosions and attacks on oil refineries that are far away from the Middle East, some located in the US, some in other parts of the world.

Some examples of infrastructure attacks so far in the past 4 months (but there are many more):

What is the goal? Most likely to:

1. To reduce the supply of every industrial chemical or product output (especially diesel which is the lifeblood of supply chains),

2. To create an artificial inflationary surge globally,

3. To reduce access for excess produce for the population (belt tightening via 2030 agenda),

4. To prioritize robotic supply chains which do not require diesel to operate in near future.

Oil lockdowns

Energy scales symmetrically to any other sector or industry. Once they crunch enough energy, they equally crunch business activities, incomes, product outputs of any sector you can think of (or 90% of them) symmetrically.

Energy shortages in most developed and European economies followed by "energy lockdowns" as potential outcome. I have had many questions over past months whether i believe the oil could go to 200, and my answer is that i do think that spikes can go far, but to have strong conviction for oil to be sticky at very high price is not the right way to go. And that is because governments are likely to step in rather quickly once shortages show up, and start imposing on population restrictions (aka lockdowns) at petrol stations, or restrictions for industry about who gets what oil. Which is deflationary for the price.

The main question is how long it would take from now on (June 2026) for shortages to show up in a consistent manner where it would start to impact policies of countries. Are we talking a few weeks, a month, or more months from now? Global inventories are not that depleted yet. This is the question I don't have any assumption on, other than knowing that at some point this year or at latest early next year it could start to happen, and it should follow chronological progress as outlined below based on the type of economy/country:

1. It is likely that island based nations (Sri Lanka, Madagaskar, UK, Taiwan, Singapore,...) could be first to see energy rationing because of how supply chains on island nations are typically the least stacked with reserves or have enough resource access.
   

2. 
   

   Second thranche could be developed nations in Asian or African economies which have very low oil or gas reserves. Those could face the shortages and implementing the "energy lockdowns" with limited work-per-week distribution. Especially Asian economies (look 2020 as example) due to more unified top down government solutions and obidient population could be first one seeing such policies to come about after the island based nations.
   

3. Third thrance which probably comes later than the first two would be developed economies of Europe. There might be several weeks of extra time or perhaps month or two before the rationing would be implemented in those economies.
   

4. 
   

   The last chunk would be US, Canada and Russia, the major oil producing nations, which would possibly only implement rationing just to keep the oil price pressure down, but not necessarily due to shortages of supply. The lag between those three economies vs the rest of global economies could be several months, maybe even year+.

Think of energy shortages and "energy lockdowns" as a version of what we saw in 2020, where a state dictates where one can go, how far, and requires a certain code of entry to be displayed for transportation or at the entries. The distance to which you are allowed to travel by car could be perhaps limited by the state as well. The amount of petrol you can put into the tank of a car could be limited and set by the state. Air travel becomes so expensive that the majority are no longer considering it viable due to airline fuel being the most scarce. Due to maritime chokepoint disruptions (Hormuz, Malacca, Suez...), the safety of maritime travel declines significantly, so that option becomes less viable as an alternative to air or car travel which matters especially for global trade as most of global trade goes via the shipping routes (inflationary).

Basically, the energy shortages would begin to limit economic activity of the population as a whole and lead especially to an impact on one of the most obviously exposed sectors: Tourism. I believe that tourism in 2027 could see just as sharp decline as it was in 2020, with both years being emerged in lockdowns. From investing standpoint i would be very careful owning any stocks exposed to that (Carnival etc)

Freedom of logistics and cheap energy are the core pillars of global tourism. Local tourism can still exist without cheap energy, but not global tourism. So think of how many countries globally rely on many tourists coming from 1000+ miles away and represent 50% of the total tourism population. The list is quite long. I believe there will be significant economic strain on that side. South Asia, South America, Southern Europe, and Egypt first come to mind.

Potential for biggest inflation spike in past 5 decades

If oil shortages do happen to significant extent and much of writen on article above comes true, then the next sequence of that would be ramping inflation followed by demand destruction policies followed by depression and deflation. So a full on roller coaster, pretty much how 2020-22 went.

As a result we might get significant inflation spikes, followed by depression conditions, assuming that governments around the world would quickly start implementing demand destructive policies, limiting consumers for fuel use, and essentially limiting the use/consumption of pretty much any other resource as result.

If that were to unfold as pointed above, it could be very tricky trying to predict where the prices of things go. It could be a roller coaster of price discovery, as on one hand you get spikes and then dumps due to the policies. Higher prices, yes, but rallies could be sharply reversed via government policies. And I don't think that's a far stretch; just look at what oil has been doing in 2026. Sharp spike, followed by significant decline via policy actions, followed now by another surge. I think all global resources could follow such a pattern, including some consumer products.

But one thing I am quite certain about is that from a monetary policy standpoint, we should see higher interest rates and bonds going much lower.

Oil shortages would be very bad news for the GDP of any country, and as they would be inflationary, it could be a double whammy for bond prices. Japanese JGB bonds have been screaming for the whole year already that something big is about to happen that will be very inflationary for the Japanese economy, and the only thing I can think of is an oil shortage due to the Hormuz closure, since Japan imports nearly 80% of its oil from there.

So we could see the Fed, ECB, BOJ, and other central banks starting to hike interest rates rapidly, and we already have the new FED chairman explicitly saying that they won't tolerate any inflation above 2%, which basically means they just placed a red carpet for aggressive rate hikes if CPI were to start upticking. And some upticks in CPI have already been noticeable in 2026 so far, but I believe they will become far more obvious by the end of the year.

Just as resource prices could see rallies, food prices of core food produce like wheat could see rally too, or especially any energy intensive food produce. I think we could see wheat price rally significantly towards end of this year or perhaps by end of Q1 next year.

As a frame of reference, why wheat bullish bias:

-this year's wheat harvest in the US is projected to be (as per reports) the worst in 50 years

-drought in the US this year is reported to be the worst in 50 years

-Hormuz blocked will create shortages of fertilizer, forcing farmers to reduce production even further

-high fertilizer costs have already spiked the largest farm bankruptcies this year in the last 2 decades, which will further reduce wheat supply

-high energy costs are so far impacting farmers in many Asian countries to produce less as they are not profitable, which means less rice, less soybeans, which means more bid on wheat as a result to balance the food

This situation is not typical. This is the most imbalanced the agri sector or wheat specifically had in a long time. Inflationary for wheat.

Gradual decline in business activity and prosperity, leading to an increase in unemployment by mid 2027

Energy is fuel for business activity. There are not many business sectors or industries which arent affected by energy costs going up or shortages appearing.

If a consumer is not able to drive to 5 shopping places due to oil costs being too high, and instead goes to only 3 places from there on, that is 2 places which receive less income.

High oil costs or shortages (and government restrictions) can easily lead to decreased economic activity and lesser revenues for small-scale businesses. Which eventually leads to higher unemployment. My prediction would be, if (emphasis on if) the conflict is not resolved by end of this year, and Hormuz is still shut, we will see a significant rise in unemployment (levels last seen in 2008 or 2020) by the mid of next year. If conflict is resolved by the month of August, however, then i would not have any such expectations. The longer that Hormuz remains closed the more this outcome becomes probable.

Mass protests in 2027 due to inflation, oil shortages and worsening economic conditions

All revolutions are secretly financed and covertly created including many larger protests. People are exploited under nationalistic slogans that macro riggers carefully install to trigger a prideful population (usually young) to revolt. If you study prior revolutions, there is one variable that is always a necessity before revolution: a significant decrease of living standards, hunger, poverty, just generally worse times than they were before. Macro riggers help create those conditions so that the population (those full of testosterone) are quicker to rebel, quicker to find meaning to fight someone or something.

This is where this whole global energy crisis combined with major geopolitical clash events (US-Iran, US-China, NATO-Russia) could become so problematic. Because if we really do see a decline in economic conditions and supply shortages, all of that can later in 2027 be exploited to cook up a revolutionary environment and make people mass rebel. But before that would happen, you would see a major increase in protests on the street as a clue. So keep eye on that, if you notice significant increase of that, major event could be cooking up for 2027.

Remember the slogan "never let a crisis go to waste", that saying, coined by macro riggers, is that if bad times are guaranteed to come, why not exploit them even more from what can be exploited.

AI and robotics are quietly advancing at a rapid pace while everything organic might be facing tougher times:

This will be a speculative projection, but it is backed by research from key global institutions such as WEF, WB, Pentagon, and other papers i have read over the past few years, which all suggest massive changes in the value of the human "unit" because of how much degradation robotics and AI will create for us as valuable work unit. All of those institutions are very much aligned about how big the job losses will be, and how big of a crisis of value it will create for us, since in the near future it will become hard to compete against robotic and AI creations around workplaces. Most of those documents if you read through them, also suggest that the workforce will not be able to restructure, meaning the jobs losses will open very few new job opportunities for people to transition to.

Now why does it matter to highlight those institutions and their material? Because the members of those entities are the ones (not all, but certainly some members) responsible for what I call "macro rigging". Orchestrating events, leading society towards the directional outcomes they believe "need to happen". So just think about it, the same people who are posting the material on large restructuring of workforce are also financeers of trouble.

So this is where I think that AI and robotics could perhaps play a role in why the 4th turning might be so rushed now, with such a disruption to our well-being and lives, because our value as a working unit will rapidly start to decline in the future economy. So if you believe Musk that we will all just be given social income and be completely consumer-driven units from now on and we will just all enjoy drinking Pina coladas at the beach (no work contribution, just consumption), then I would say that I don't believe too much in that reality (or believing much what Musk says in first place anyways). I believe for a fact, due to research, that people who rule us are absolutely ruthless. And ruthless people potentially have more disruptive and cunning plans.

But i do believe as assumption that advances in robotics and AI are perfectly matching 4th turnings escalatory progression for a reason.

Using cyclicality of humanity in context for projections

The good times are followed by even better times, followed by a peak, followed by destruction/decline, and then repeat the entire rotation again. That is essentially what society has been doing on a regional or global scale for a long time. The whole concept can be easily explained through Age of Empires to those familiar with the PC game. A player is granted at the start a stage to build, to expand (boom), to enmass and army, and then send that army to destroy and reshape the landscape. And then the game end/repeats on restart. In itself, this is pretty much what we do as a global society as well, or at least those that play with our lives, since we are not in control of events.

The cycles: 1st turning: rebuild 2nd turning: build+innovate 3rd turning: build+reach max military capacity 4th turning: destroy

Repeat

Some of my older articles that help to define 4th turning and why it might be happening: The 4th turning, the social class warfare and revolutionary component

The fourth turning, generational crisis event in the potential formation

So the summary of my predictions or events that are probable to happen would be:

-Polycrisis develops between 2026 and 2028 (health, economic, warfare, geopolitics...)

-Strait of Hormuz isn't shut down just for a few weeks, instead for months or years+

-NATO has internal breakup, either a few countries leave, or the US leaves it

-Russia invades certain NATO countries

-US imposes energy export ban

-Taiwan operation is a go

-Unemployment rises significantly

-Global inflation spikes

-Energy lockdowns are implemented (partial stay-at-home policies)

-Attacks on energy infrastructure globally keep rolling

-World becomes short on oil as a whole, with consumers facing major rationing at petrol stations for the first time since the 1970s

-All 4 key maritime choke points (Hormuz, Bab el Mandab, Suez, Malacca, Panama) get disrupted

Conclusion

Yes, this article is, of course, quite pessimistic in outlook, perhaps provocative, or some might say even arrogant (because who can predict large-scale events anyway), but I am using 15 years of geopolitical research, and more importantly, research on "all things rigged," to come to this view, and the timing for the escalatory cycle fits the circumstances.

Either way, I sincerely hope I get most of the things wrong and end up being proven a total flop for the sake of our well-being. But I wouldn't be writing the article if I thought I'd be wrong on all this. Crimson sky might be upon us.